Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-14 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2008 PLANNING BOARD Approved VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday February 14, 2008 - 8:00 p.m. ......................................................................... ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARING 1. Site Plan review of an Application by Walter G. Nestler on behalf of Mr. And Mrs. Dan Wurtzel for Wetlands and Steep Slopes Work Permits for construction of an in- ground pool and spa at 43 Meadowlark Road, Rye Brook, NY, Section 129.84, Block 1, Lot 9 in the R-20 Zoning District. NEW BUSINESS 2. Site Plan review of an Application by Steven Marchesani for a second story and garage addition, new curb cut and other site improvements at 282 North Ridge Street, Rye Brook, NY, Section 135.27, Block 1, Lot 10 in the R-15 Zoning District. • Considering a Resolution to schedule a Public Hearing. MINUTES 3. Review and approval of minutes DISCUSSION ITEMS ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS Subject to consent of Planning Board Members present at the meeting. THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING February 28, 2008 and March 13, 2008. Village Hall is fully accessible to the handicapped. Those who need special arrangements should contact the Village Administrator's Office ONE-WEEK IN ADVANCE OF A MEETING AT (914) 939-1121 Pagel of 8 February 14, 2008 PLANNING BOARD Approved PRESENT BOARD Mr. John Grzan Mr. Warren Agatston Mrs. Michele Fredman Mr. Bill Laufer Mr. Domenic Accurso Chairman Gary Zuckerman EXCUSED Mrs. Amy Schoen STAFF Mrs. Amanda Kandel, Village Counsel Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant Mr. Victor G. Carosi, P.E., Village Engineer Mr. Mike Nowak, Jr. Village Engineer Ms. Shari Melillo, Planning Board Secretary Chairman Zuckerman opened the meeting by asking everyone to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. He then introduced the Board members and the Village Staff to the audience, explained the rules of procedure for the meeting and made note for the public that the complete set of Planning Board Rules and Procedures can be found on the Village web site. Chairman Zuckerman called for the first item on the agenda: PUBLIC HEARING 1. Site Plan review of an Application by Walter G. Nestler on behalf of Mr. And Mrs. Dan Wurtzel for Wetlands and Steep Slopes Work Permits for construction of an in-ground pool and spa at 43 Meadowlark Road, Rye Brook, NY, Section 129.84, Block 1, Lot 9 in the R-20 Zoning District. Chairman Zuckerman asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing and on a motion made by Mrs. Fredman and seconded by Mr. Agatston, the roll was called: Mr. Accurso Yes Mr. Agatston Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Mr. Laufer Yes Chairman Zuckerman Yes Motion carried. Page 2 of 8 February 14, 2008 PLANNING BOARD Approved Mr. Walter Nestler, Landscape Architect for the applicant, addressed the Board and thanked them for taking the time to perform a site visit. Mr. Nestler distributed a hand out to the Board members that responded to comments/observations made by the Board at the last meeting and he addressed changes made to the site plan. Chairman Zuckerman explained that the purpose of a site visit by the Board is to view a site. Board members should not make comments to an applicant during a site visit. Mr. Nestler discussed the site survey and explained how a stream divides the property into a useable area adjacent to the rear of the home and an inaccessible wooded area on the other side of the stream. When discussing steep slopes and heavy tree cover on the property, he stated that erosion is noticeable along the slope. He added that he is working with the Village Engineer regarding the storm water management plan and a retention basin is proposed as an alternative to the original stormwater management system. The basin would have the capacity to hold runoff from the roof He also described the stream that runs through the site, describing it as an intermittent stream coming from a culvert under the Hutchinson River Parkway that is active during heavy rains. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed addressed the Board. She reviewed the application and noted the revisions made to the plan. She noted concerns with the proposed retention basin, saying the basin would increase disturbance to the buffer because construction of the basin may require bringing fill into the rear yard. Although a detention basin is permitted, and it is an acceptable storm water management technique, it is not appropriate in this case because it would take up most of the usable rear yard of the home, it would not help resolve the steep slopes issue because construction of the basin would create new steep slopes that would be located closer to the stream and the removal of additional trees and the location of the basin itself would negatively impact s the functioning of the buffer. There would also be safety and maintenance issues attached to an open basin on a small residential property. If the Board were to determine the basin acceptable, the applicant should submit a detailed monitoring and maintenance plan for the entire storm water management facility. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed stated that five additional trees would be removed if the basin were to be installed and the locations of remaining trees on the site were not properly identified on the current set of plans. In addition, she noted that potential noise from the pool equipment has not been addressed. Mr. Carosi addressed the Board. He stated concerns for the long-term maintenance of the proposed storm water management basin. He said the Applicant should provide detailed long term maintenance plans should the basin proposal ultimately move forward. He too had concerns about disturbances to existing steep slopes, as well as creating new steep slopes, with the construction of the proposed pond, including the potential for movement or failure of the slopes supporting the basin over time. Detailed installation and inspection procedures to insure that the pond slopes are adequately constructed would be required. Page 3 of 8 February 14, 2008 PLANNING BOARD Approved Chairman Zuckerman asked about the change in stone water management technique and whether there were meetings held between Village staff and the project consultant, Mr. Carosi responded that he was a little surprised at the technique chosen for storm water management and that there were no meetings or discussions between the consultant and Village staff. Chairman Zuckerman added that the Board should consider the acceptability of the technique suggested, in light of comments from the staff. Mr. Agatston noted that on the original plans there were two sets of walls proposed in the area of the existing steep slopes. He said he did not understand why the second wall was removed from the site plan. He felt the wall would alleviate some of the concerns with the slopes and he also believed the original plans for the storm water management was closer to what the Board was looking for. He noted the plan has moved in a different direction from what was originally proposed and he personally was not happy with the proposed changes. Mrs. Fredman had multiple concerns including the potential for bringing fill onto the site, asking if the higher elevation closer to the house was being increased by the plan. Mr. Nestler responded that the upper level adjacent to the rear of the home was not being increased. In the new plan soil from excavation of the swimming pool would be used to construct the retention basin, eliminating the need to add or remove soil from the site. He acknowledged the basin would be an unorthodox approach for the site because of the safety issue; however, he proposed relocating the safety fencing surrounding the swimming pool to include the basin, which should satisfy the safety concerns. Mr. Nestler added that the property is somewhat secluded on a cul-de-sac. He stated there is nothing in the back yard but the woods that include a gas line easement, which effectively eliminates any development potential of the unused area of the property. Mr. Grzan stated that he does not favor the revised plan. He believes it is an interesting solution, but does not believe it is practical. Mr. Grzan suggested the applicant should sit down with the Village staff to develop an acceptable plan. He also believes that the basin will overflow at some point and is concerned about overflow during a severe storm. Mr. Accurso asked for the capacity of the basin. Mr. Nestler responded that the holding capacity of the original storm water plan was 884 cubic feet of water; however, the revised plan, with the basin, doubled the retention capacity of the system. Mr. Accurso believes a storm water basin on a small residential property is not common, adding that storm water retention basins are usually reserved for larger subdivisions, such as Red Roof Farms or commercial properties such as the Reckson corporate office park. Mr. Accurso asked who is responsible for maintaining the existing stream. Mr. Carosi explained that the property owner would be responsible for maintaining the stream. Mr. Accurso concurred with the other Board members that the retention basin proposal was not practical or desirable on the subject property. Chairman Zuckerman stated that he was disturbed that the applicant changed the concept of the plan without discussion with Village staff. He said he would like the applicant to meet with the Village Engineer and Village Planning Consultant to discuss the issues in Page 4 of 8 February 14, 2008 PLANNING BOARD Approved order to develop a plan that reflects the best way to manage storm water so that the Board can move forward. He added that if the modifications to the original plan discussed at the first meeting had been implemented rather than the major concept revision presented tonight, the application could have been approved this evening. Chairman Zuckerman suggested an adjournment of the application for one month to give the applicant time to meet with Village staff and submit revised plans. Mrs. Mohamed asked to speak, saying she liked the idea of keeping excavated soil on site; however she would not recommend a retention basin on a residential property for safety and maintenance concerns. Mrs. Mohamed added that potential erosion of the steep slopes of the basin would cause major maintenance problems and imperil the water quality of the stream. However, if the applicant were to remove the basin, re-grade the yard using excavated soil to create a gentle slope and put "Cul-tec" units into the area under the re-graded slope, the applicant can avoid removing soil from the site, eliminate steep slopes, and the storm water facility would be underground, making maintenance of the system easier. Mrs. Fredman asked about the pool equipment noise and if that issue had been resolved. Mr. Nestler responded that the equipment would be located at the lower level corner of the house and be screened by evergreen plantings. He stated the equipment would be modern and quiet. Further, he said, the applicant would be willing to install a solid fence around the equipment, but does not believe noise will be a problem, Chairman Zuckerman asked for a motion to adjourn the application to the 27th of March 2008 and on a motion made by Mr. Agatston and seconded by Mrs. Fredman, the roll was called: Mr. Accurso Yes Mr. Agatston Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Mr. Laufer Yes Chairman Zuckerman Yes Chairman Zuckerman called for the next item on the agenda: NEW BUSINESS 2. Site Plan review of an Application by Steven Marchesani for a second story and garage addition, new curb cut and other site improvements at 282 North Ridge Street, Rye Brook, NY, Section 135.27, Block 1, Lot 10 in the R-15 Zoning District. • Considering a Resolution to schedule a Public Hearing. Page 5 of 8 February 14, 2008 PLANNING BOARD Approved Mr. Agatston noted that he observed there was no meeting notice sign on the property and asked if a sign has been installed. Village staff responded that a meeting notice sign was installed. Chairman Zuckerman stated that he believes that the project as proposed may require substantial revision so the Board should handle it as a "sketch plan" review. Chairman Zuckerman made a disclosure noting that he has employed the architect for a project in the past for remodeling of his home. He said that prior to the Planning Board meeting, he requested the Ethics Board consider if his professional relationship with the architect would present any conflicts. He stated to the Board and the public that the Ethics Board advised him that no conflict exists. Mr. Marchesani addressed the Board and gave a brief overview of the project. He explained that overall impervious surface coverage of the property would be reduced by over 1,100 square feet and that the circular driveway was proposed to eliminate the need to back a vehicle out onto North Ridge Street. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed addressed the Board noting that the existing home has zoning non-conformities, including a non-complying front-yard resulting from adoption of the Scenic Roads Overlay District (SROD), and a non-complying side yard and total of two side yards. The proposed circular driveway, the additions and the increase in gross floor area would create new non-conformities that would require variances for approval of the site plan as proposed, including front-yard set-back variance of 14 feet for the proposed second floor/ front porch extension; a front-yard variance of 11.27 feet for the new garage; a 7-foot side-yard variance for the new garage; a 7-foot variance from the minimum total of two side yards; a 637-foot variance from the allowable gross floor area; and a variance for parking in the front yard SROD buffer for the circular driveway. The circular driveway would also require d an additional curb cut on North Ridge Street. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed recommended alternate means to safely exit the property that would not require an additional curb cut, suggesting a straight-in driveway with a turn- around area and that the applicant consider a more developed landscape plan to create a vegetated buffer along the road and locate screening along the driveway. She stated the grading plan needs a little more work and the Village Engineer should review the erosion and sediment control plans. Mr. Agatston stated his concern regarding the encroachment of the home into the SROD buffer. He would like to see a revised plan that eliminates the encroachment. He also believes there are too many variances required by the current plan and that it should also be looked at again to see if the number of variances required could be reduced. Mrs. Fredman agreed with Mr. Agatston and would also like to see additional landscape improvements. Page 6 of 8 February 14, 2008 PLANNING BOARD Approved Chairman Zuckerman said he would like the applicant to rework the plan and believes that the circular driveway should be eliminated. In doing so, three areas of concern - parking, curb cuts and extent of impervious surface coverage could thereby be reduced or eliminated. He also agreed that the variances should be reduced as much as possible. He added that the Board would like to see revised plans addressing the concerns expressed before the applicant comes back before the Board. At that time the decision can be made whether the application should go before the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to Planning Board approval. If the variances are sufficiently minimized or eliminated, we may be able to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He requested that the applicant meet with the Village Planner and Village staff to develop a more acceptable plan and stated that the Board should adjourn review of the project for one month to give the applicant time to meet with the Planner and Village staff and submit revised plans. Mr. Accurso added that he had concerns regarding the calculation of the height of the proposed building even though the elevation drawing indicates the height would be 26.6 feet. He added that he was concerned that the proposed home might tower over the neighboring homes and believes the height of the building should be carefully reviewed as well. The homeowner addressed the Board, thanking them for understanding that the notice sign was knocked down by severe weather. He asked why the new garage would be non- complying if it does not protrude into the front yard any further than what is there now. Chairman Zuckerman explained that the garage would need a variance because it extends into the required yard setbacks. Mrs. Mohamed added that the Planning Board cannot approve the plan unless the Zoning Board approves the variances. She also explained that the second curb cut must be approved by Westchester County. The homeowner explained that the existing garage under the rear of the home is subject to severe water problems. To eliminate the water problem, that portion of the property would be graded and a new front-access garage would be located on the other side of the home. The circular driveway was added to the plan to allow a vehicle to enter the roadway safely. Mr. Agatston asked Mr. Carosi if there was anything else that could be done on the applicant's property to alleviate his water problem without the addition of a new garage and circular driveway, adding that he is sympathetic to the homeowner's situation. Mr. Carosi explained that there are definitely wet conditions in the area that are beyond the homeowner's control. He added that some of the storm water problems will be addressed by the rebuilding of North Ridge Street as discussed at an informational meeting held at Village Hall by representatives from Westchester County Department of Public Works the previous night, However, Mr. Carosi agreed that the plan should be reviewed to see if a more acceptable site plan can be developed. Page 7 of 8 February 14, 2008 PLANNING BOARD Approved Mrs. Mohamed suggested that the garage could be moved back a sufficient distance to enable adequate parking in front of the garage, but beyond the 35-foot SROD buffer, eliminating the variance required for the driveway. There are many site plan solutions that can address the homeowner's safety and parking concerns. A circular driveway is not the only solution that would allow for additional parking. She added that a circular driveway is not appropriate for a front yard the size of the subject property. Mr. Grzan agreed with the homeowner regarding the safety issue created by backing out into traffic on North Ridge Street. Mr. Accurso wanted it noted that the Board does not look favorably on circular driveways even in areas like Byram Ridge with its larger lots. Chairman Zuckerman adjourned the application until the 27th of March 2008 and advised the applicant to make sure the notice signs are in place for the next appearance. There being no further business, Chairman Zuckerman asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting and on a motion made by Mrs. Fredman and seconded by Mr. Agatston, the roll was called: Mr. Accurso Yes Mr. Agatston Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Mr. Laufer Yes Chairman Zuckerman Yes Motion carried Meeting adjourned at 9:46 pm Page 8 of 8